Iraqi soldiers, police drop weapons, flee posts in portions of Mosul
- Thread starter Zarvan
- Start date
.... with their photo shoot .... 
Hashshāshīn
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,068
- Reaction score
- -2
No one wants to live under Sharia.
The SC
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 32,233
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
Extremes call extremes, when an eastern nation goes extreme to a western style, there will be the other extreme to counter it, it did happen in Iran and was countered by a revolution. it happened elsewhere in the muslim world and was dealt with less radically, but with less efficieny too.
No one should be more secular than what secularism means, Islam has been praised for it s balanced secularism even by best western minds throughout time.
It just shows that ignorants can not bear Islam, even at its most moderate and balanced form, its true form, and can be attracted to deviant ways of life easily; corruption is one of them...
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Official: US May Send 100 Special Forces To Baghdad
Jun. 19, 2014
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
WASHINGTON— Washington may deploy 100 Special Forces soldiers to advise the Iraqi army in its defense of Baghdad from Sunni extremists but not initially to call in air strikes, US officials said Thursday.
President Barack Obama is “leaning” toward a limited course of action that would “embed” the commandos with Iraqi forces, one of the defense officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP.
A second official said the 100 troops would be capable of calling in airstrikes if the administration later ordered that step.
The 100 troops would be in addition to the 275 forces that Obama has already mobilized to bolster security at the US embassy in Baghdad, the official said.
It was unclear how the White House would explain sending troops to advise the Iraqi army as Obama has vowed not to approve “boots on the ground” in Iraq — three years after a large American force withdrew.
Obama’s most senior security advisers met at the White House to discuss the potential deployment minutes before a scheduled announcement by the president on Iraq.
US military officers also confirmed that F-18 fighter jets flying from the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush in the Gulf were taking part in surveillance flights over Iraq.
The F-18 flights had taken place “over the past several days,” said a military officer, who asked not to be named.
“We are flying both manned and unmanned ISR missions over Iraq,” the officer said.
The Pentagon had previously acknowledged that robotic drones had been providing intelligence to the Iraqi military and that Washington had expanded the number of planes involved in recent weeks following a request from Baghdad.
Official: US May Send 100 Special Forces To Baghdad | Defense News | defensenews.com
Jun. 19, 2014
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
WASHINGTON— Washington may deploy 100 Special Forces soldiers to advise the Iraqi army in its defense of Baghdad from Sunni extremists but not initially to call in air strikes, US officials said Thursday.
President Barack Obama is “leaning” toward a limited course of action that would “embed” the commandos with Iraqi forces, one of the defense officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP.
A second official said the 100 troops would be capable of calling in airstrikes if the administration later ordered that step.
The 100 troops would be in addition to the 275 forces that Obama has already mobilized to bolster security at the US embassy in Baghdad, the official said.
It was unclear how the White House would explain sending troops to advise the Iraqi army as Obama has vowed not to approve “boots on the ground” in Iraq — three years after a large American force withdrew.
Obama’s most senior security advisers met at the White House to discuss the potential deployment minutes before a scheduled announcement by the president on Iraq.
US military officers also confirmed that F-18 fighter jets flying from the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush in the Gulf were taking part in surveillance flights over Iraq.
The F-18 flights had taken place “over the past several days,” said a military officer, who asked not to be named.
“We are flying both manned and unmanned ISR missions over Iraq,” the officer said.
The Pentagon had previously acknowledged that robotic drones had been providing intelligence to the Iraqi military and that Washington had expanded the number of planes involved in recent weeks following a request from Baghdad.
Official: US May Send 100 Special Forces To Baghdad | Defense News | defensenews.com
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Obama Sends Advisers to Baghdad; Aides Say US Could Strike Inside Syria
Jun. 19, 2014 -
By PAUL McLEARY
WASHINGTON— President Obama announced Thursday that he plans to send about 300 US military advisers to Iraq to assist the government in its fight against extremists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), who have taken over vast swaths of the country’s Sunni-dominated west and north.
The United States is already flying manned and unmanned aircraft over Iraq to collect intelligence, a senior administration official said. As part of the ramp up in US aid, American drones could eventually be used to hit ISIL targets — even if some of those targets reside in Syria.
Speaking after the president’s announcement, the official said that any direct action by American forces against ISIL “would be in a more targeted and focused way if we felt there was a target on the ground that demanded our unique capabilities.”
But the official cautioned that the “several dozen” US special forces troops heading to Iraq over the coming weeks will first have to perform an assessment of the capabilities and “cohesion” of the Iraqi forces, as the purpose of the deployment is “a capacity-building mission on the ground and a broader intelligence mission” to help the Iraqis do the fighting themselves.
The American forces will begin work at the ministerial level to help create joint operation centers in Baghdad and northern Iraq to share intelligence and coordinate planning, but some teams could also operate as low as the brigade level with Iraqi forces in Baghdad and in northern Iraq.
Asked if the special forces teams will act as ground controllers directing Iraqi airstrikes, the official said, “we have not decided to have these types of teams calling in airstrikes. However, it is the case that one of the things you can do in a joint operations center in partnership with the Iraqis is share information and help them develop targets”
In his remarks, Obama downplayed the growing US military involvement in Iraq, saying the deployment of US troops is meant to help the government in Baghdad focus on political reconciliation between the Shia-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the restive Sunni population and the Kurds in the north.
“There’s no military solution inside of Iraq,” he said, “certainly not one that is led by the United States. But there is an urgent need for an inclusive political process, a more capable Iraqi security force and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like ISIL a safe haven.
Speaking with reporters at the Pentagon Thursday morning, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said, “we also know that in the long term, we need a sustainable solution for the whole region.
“That is, we have to integrate with diplomatic and political solutions for neighboring countries of the whole region,” she said.
The Senate Armed Services Committee is also meeting this afternoon in a closed door hearing with Pentagon and Defense Intelligence Agency officials to get the latest on the situation in Iraq.
The reaction from Capitol Hill has been slow, with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi striking a skeptical tone at her weekly press conference, telling reporters, “I think that you have to be careful sending special forces because that’s a number that has a tendency to grow. And so I’d like to see the context, purpose, timeline and all the rest for anything like that.”
Conversely, Tim Kaine, D-Va., said after the president’s remarks that the dispatch of advisers “is a prudent move to assess the ISIL threat, and I look forward to continued close consultation with the administration on any potential military action.”
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140619/DEFREG02/306190034/Obama-Sends-Advisers-Baghdad-Aides-Say-US-Could-Strike-Inside-Syria?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|World News|p
Jun. 19, 2014 -
By PAUL McLEARY
WASHINGTON— President Obama announced Thursday that he plans to send about 300 US military advisers to Iraq to assist the government in its fight against extremists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), who have taken over vast swaths of the country’s Sunni-dominated west and north.
The United States is already flying manned and unmanned aircraft over Iraq to collect intelligence, a senior administration official said. As part of the ramp up in US aid, American drones could eventually be used to hit ISIL targets — even if some of those targets reside in Syria.
Speaking after the president’s announcement, the official said that any direct action by American forces against ISIL “would be in a more targeted and focused way if we felt there was a target on the ground that demanded our unique capabilities.”
But the official cautioned that the “several dozen” US special forces troops heading to Iraq over the coming weeks will first have to perform an assessment of the capabilities and “cohesion” of the Iraqi forces, as the purpose of the deployment is “a capacity-building mission on the ground and a broader intelligence mission” to help the Iraqis do the fighting themselves.
The American forces will begin work at the ministerial level to help create joint operation centers in Baghdad and northern Iraq to share intelligence and coordinate planning, but some teams could also operate as low as the brigade level with Iraqi forces in Baghdad and in northern Iraq.
Asked if the special forces teams will act as ground controllers directing Iraqi airstrikes, the official said, “we have not decided to have these types of teams calling in airstrikes. However, it is the case that one of the things you can do in a joint operations center in partnership with the Iraqis is share information and help them develop targets”
In his remarks, Obama downplayed the growing US military involvement in Iraq, saying the deployment of US troops is meant to help the government in Baghdad focus on political reconciliation between the Shia-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the restive Sunni population and the Kurds in the north.
“There’s no military solution inside of Iraq,” he said, “certainly not one that is led by the United States. But there is an urgent need for an inclusive political process, a more capable Iraqi security force and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like ISIL a safe haven.
Speaking with reporters at the Pentagon Thursday morning, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said, “we also know that in the long term, we need a sustainable solution for the whole region.
“That is, we have to integrate with diplomatic and political solutions for neighboring countries of the whole region,” she said.
The Senate Armed Services Committee is also meeting this afternoon in a closed door hearing with Pentagon and Defense Intelligence Agency officials to get the latest on the situation in Iraq.
The reaction from Capitol Hill has been slow, with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi striking a skeptical tone at her weekly press conference, telling reporters, “I think that you have to be careful sending special forces because that’s a number that has a tendency to grow. And so I’d like to see the context, purpose, timeline and all the rest for anything like that.”
Conversely, Tim Kaine, D-Va., said after the president’s remarks that the dispatch of advisers “is a prudent move to assess the ISIL threat, and I look forward to continued close consultation with the administration on any potential military action.”
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140619/DEFREG02/306190034/Obama-Sends-Advisers-Baghdad-Aides-Say-US-Could-Strike-Inside-Syria?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|World News|p
OCguy
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 1,207
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
These extremists may have over-played their hand here. They were enjoying relative anonymity in Syria and western Iraq, with no real force to defends themselves against. Now, if someone like the US does decide to get involved from the air, they will not confine the strikes to the lowly foot-soldiers. There will be Special Forces raids, JDAMs, and Hellfires targeting the leadership in Syria or anywhere else they are hiding.
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Obama To Send Up To 300 Military Advisers To Iraq
Jun. 19, 2014 -
By LEO SHANE III
Saying that an “all-out civil war” in Iraq could endanger US security interests, President Barack Obama on Thursday announced plans to send up to 300 military advisers into the crumbling nation and step up intelligence efforts to respond to the growing insurgent threat there.
But the commander in chief emphasized that the steps do not foreshadow another lengthy US military operation there, promising that “American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again.”
The moves come after steady advances in northern Iraq by fighters with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, radical insurgents spilling across the Syrian border who have already seized a number of Iraqi cities and defense sites.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has requested US air support to deal with the growing threat, but Obama on Thursday committed only to repositioning American forces to be ready for such a response.
For now, additional military operations in the region will focus only on securing US embassies, collecting intelligence on ISIL movements, and coordinating that strategic information with Iraqi forces.
Obama said American planners will not mandate how Iraq’s fledgling democracy develops, saying they’re “a sovereign country with their own politics.”
But he did take several shots at al-Maliki, saying that the existing government needs to do a better job of unifying Iraq’s deep political and religious divisions in order to survive.
“There is not going to be a simple military solution to this issue,” he said. “If you see the separate groups just go to their corners, Baghdad will not be able to control large areas of the country. ... Right now, there’s too much suspicion, too much mistrust.”
Obama said the deployment of US military advisers to Iraq is designed not only to aid the Iraqi government’s security response but also to protect American interests, by better tracking — and undermining — the long-term threat posed by ISIL.
“We want to make sure we are vindicating the enormous effort and sacrifice that was made by our troops” from 2003 to 2011, Obama said.
Obama To Send Up To 300 Military Advisers To Iraq | Defense News | defensenews.com
Jun. 19, 2014 -
By LEO SHANE III
Saying that an “all-out civil war” in Iraq could endanger US security interests, President Barack Obama on Thursday announced plans to send up to 300 military advisers into the crumbling nation and step up intelligence efforts to respond to the growing insurgent threat there.
But the commander in chief emphasized that the steps do not foreshadow another lengthy US military operation there, promising that “American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again.”
The moves come after steady advances in northern Iraq by fighters with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, radical insurgents spilling across the Syrian border who have already seized a number of Iraqi cities and defense sites.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has requested US air support to deal with the growing threat, but Obama on Thursday committed only to repositioning American forces to be ready for such a response.
For now, additional military operations in the region will focus only on securing US embassies, collecting intelligence on ISIL movements, and coordinating that strategic information with Iraqi forces.
Obama said American planners will not mandate how Iraq’s fledgling democracy develops, saying they’re “a sovereign country with their own politics.”
But he did take several shots at al-Maliki, saying that the existing government needs to do a better job of unifying Iraq’s deep political and religious divisions in order to survive.
“There is not going to be a simple military solution to this issue,” he said. “If you see the separate groups just go to their corners, Baghdad will not be able to control large areas of the country. ... Right now, there’s too much suspicion, too much mistrust.”
Obama said the deployment of US military advisers to Iraq is designed not only to aid the Iraqi government’s security response but also to protect American interests, by better tracking — and undermining — the long-term threat posed by ISIL.
“We want to make sure we are vindicating the enormous effort and sacrifice that was made by our troops” from 2003 to 2011, Obama said.
Obama To Send Up To 300 Military Advisers To Iraq | Defense News | defensenews.com
OCguy
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 1,207
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
300 Green Berets from Army special forces. Should they be attacked, you can probably assume they will not strip naked and run away, and it isn't even their country.
They were the among the first SF on the ground in Afghanistan in 2001 alongside the CIA, and rode on horseback as part of their mission of bringing Karzai to Kabul.
They were the among the first SF on the ground in Afghanistan in 2001 alongside the CIA, and rode on horseback as part of their mission of bringing Karzai to Kabul.
Last edited:
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Well thats the difference between professionalism and soldier of fortune!
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
Capitol Hill Calling for US Military Action in Iraq
Jun. 16, 2014 - 03:45AM |
By PAUL McLEARY
Iraqi tribesmen hold up their weapons as they show their readiness to join Iraqi security forces in the fight against Jihadist militants who have taken over several northern Iraqi cities. (AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP)
WASHINGTON— As US President Obama prepared to meet with his national security team Monday evening to examine potential responses to the continuing violence in Iraq, there remained no consensus in Washington about how to react to the stunning events that had taken place in Iraq over the past week.
But an influential group of House and Senate Republicans are calling for US military action sooner rather than later to stem the tide of Sunni extremism in parts of Iraq.
With at least two Iraqi Army divisions having simply melted away in the face of several thousand members of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and a collection of local Iraqi Sunni tribe members who took the cities of Mosul, Tikrit and Tal Afar, there is increasing talk of Washington and Tehran working together to assist the government in Baghdad.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain on Monday blasted the idea of working with Iran, releasing a statement calling it “the height of folly.”
“The reality is, US and Iranian interests and goals do not align in Iraq, and greater Iranian intervention would only make the situation dramatically worse,” McCain said. Having the Iraqi Shia-led government of Nouri al-Maliki work with his Shia allies in Tehran to beat back a Sunni uprising would only inflame sectarian tensions and “drive more Sunnis into ISIS’ ranks, empower the most radical Shia militants, deepen the Iraqi government’s dependence on Iran, alienate US allies and partners in the region, and set back the prospects of national reconciliation.”
Instead, McCain called for ramping up US military assistance to Iraq while also increasing “support to moderate opposition forces in Syria that are fighting both ISIS and the Assad regime.”
Administration officials told the Associated Press on Monday that one of the options the president is considering is sending up to 100 Special Operations forces to Iraq to assist the local security forces.
The reports of possibly partnering with Iran began early Monday morning when US Secretary of State John Kerry said, “we are open to any constructive process here that could minimize the violence, hold Iraq together — the integrity of the country — and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces that are ripping it apart.”
But later in the morning, Pentagon spokesman Adm. John Kirby told reporters there are “no plans to consult Iran on military actions inside Iraq.” Nor are there any plans to “coordinate military activities.”
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki tweeted later in the day that the United States is “open to political conversation with Iran re threat from ISIL, not military cooperation.”
There are American and Iranian diplomatic teams meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, this week for the latest round of talks concerning Iran’s nuclear program, and a senior administration official said on Monday that there may be discussion of Iraq “on the margins of our discussions.”
In an interview on Fox News on Sunday, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, called for direct and continuing American military action against the extremist elements in Iraq, saying that Obama can’t “just fire missiles and come home.”
He criticized the administration for being too slow to act in both Syria and Iraq, and echoed the calls heard in 2002 for the invasion of Iraq, saying, “I guarantee you that this is a problem that we will have to face. We are either going to face it in New York City or we’re going to face it here.”
Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., House Foreign Affairs Committee chair, also criticized American policy on Monday, insisting the United States months ago could have attacked the Sunni militants now rolling through western Iraq.
“I think we’ve been too reticent here, and we’ve waited too long because they’ve taken some major positions in the interim.” Royce added, “I just think we’ve lost an opportunity. About four months ago, this began to unfold. Right then, we had a target, we had the encampment, we should have hit it.”
Speaking on MSNBC’s NewsNation on Monday, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., urged caution, insisting that whatever the president decides to do, he must consult Congress first.
“I urge the president to come to the Congress with specific proposals and recommendations,” he said, warning that he would refuse to consider any military action until the Maliki government brought together the leadership of the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish populations for power sharing talks.
“Before considering any military options, there has to be a national unity government in Iraq that reconciles the sectarian factions,” he said.
Capitol Hill Calling for US Military Action in Iraq | Defense News | defensenews.com
Jun. 16, 2014 - 03:45AM |
By PAUL McLEARY
Iraqi tribesmen hold up their weapons as they show their readiness to join Iraqi security forces in the fight against Jihadist militants who have taken over several northern Iraqi cities. (AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP)
WASHINGTON— As US President Obama prepared to meet with his national security team Monday evening to examine potential responses to the continuing violence in Iraq, there remained no consensus in Washington about how to react to the stunning events that had taken place in Iraq over the past week.
But an influential group of House and Senate Republicans are calling for US military action sooner rather than later to stem the tide of Sunni extremism in parts of Iraq.
With at least two Iraqi Army divisions having simply melted away in the face of several thousand members of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and a collection of local Iraqi Sunni tribe members who took the cities of Mosul, Tikrit and Tal Afar, there is increasing talk of Washington and Tehran working together to assist the government in Baghdad.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain on Monday blasted the idea of working with Iran, releasing a statement calling it “the height of folly.”
“The reality is, US and Iranian interests and goals do not align in Iraq, and greater Iranian intervention would only make the situation dramatically worse,” McCain said. Having the Iraqi Shia-led government of Nouri al-Maliki work with his Shia allies in Tehran to beat back a Sunni uprising would only inflame sectarian tensions and “drive more Sunnis into ISIS’ ranks, empower the most radical Shia militants, deepen the Iraqi government’s dependence on Iran, alienate US allies and partners in the region, and set back the prospects of national reconciliation.”
Instead, McCain called for ramping up US military assistance to Iraq while also increasing “support to moderate opposition forces in Syria that are fighting both ISIS and the Assad regime.”
Administration officials told the Associated Press on Monday that one of the options the president is considering is sending up to 100 Special Operations forces to Iraq to assist the local security forces.
The reports of possibly partnering with Iran began early Monday morning when US Secretary of State John Kerry said, “we are open to any constructive process here that could minimize the violence, hold Iraq together — the integrity of the country — and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces that are ripping it apart.”
But later in the morning, Pentagon spokesman Adm. John Kirby told reporters there are “no plans to consult Iran on military actions inside Iraq.” Nor are there any plans to “coordinate military activities.”
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki tweeted later in the day that the United States is “open to political conversation with Iran re threat from ISIL, not military cooperation.”
There are American and Iranian diplomatic teams meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, this week for the latest round of talks concerning Iran’s nuclear program, and a senior administration official said on Monday that there may be discussion of Iraq “on the margins of our discussions.”
In an interview on Fox News on Sunday, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, called for direct and continuing American military action against the extremist elements in Iraq, saying that Obama can’t “just fire missiles and come home.”
He criticized the administration for being too slow to act in both Syria and Iraq, and echoed the calls heard in 2002 for the invasion of Iraq, saying, “I guarantee you that this is a problem that we will have to face. We are either going to face it in New York City or we’re going to face it here.”
Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., House Foreign Affairs Committee chair, also criticized American policy on Monday, insisting the United States months ago could have attacked the Sunni militants now rolling through western Iraq.
“I think we’ve been too reticent here, and we’ve waited too long because they’ve taken some major positions in the interim.” Royce added, “I just think we’ve lost an opportunity. About four months ago, this began to unfold. Right then, we had a target, we had the encampment, we should have hit it.”
Speaking on MSNBC’s NewsNation on Monday, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., urged caution, insisting that whatever the president decides to do, he must consult Congress first.
“I urge the president to come to the Congress with specific proposals and recommendations,” he said, warning that he would refuse to consider any military action until the Maliki government brought together the leadership of the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish populations for power sharing talks.
“Before considering any military options, there has to be a national unity government in Iraq that reconciles the sectarian factions,” he said.
Capitol Hill Calling for US Military Action in Iraq | Defense News | defensenews.com
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
U.S. Signals Iraq's Maliki Should Go
By Jay Solomon & Carol E. Lee
Updated June 19, 2014 9:09 a.m. ET
The White House Is Convinced the Shiite Leader Is Unable to Reconcile With the Nation's Sunni Minority and Stabilize a Volatile Political Landscape.
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is signaling that it wants a new government in Iraq without Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, convinced the Shiite leader is unable to reconcile with the nation's Sunni minority and stabilize a volatile political landscape.
The U.S. administration is indicating it wants Iraq's political parties to form a new government without Mr. Maliki as he tries to assemble a ruling coalition following elections this past April, U.S. officials say.
Such a new government, U.S., officials say, would include the country's Sunni and Kurdish communities and could help to stem Sunni support for the al Qaeda offshoot, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, that has seized control of Iraqi cities over the past two weeks. That, the officials argue, would help to unify the country and reverse its slide into sectarian division.
On Wednesday, Iraq stepped up efforts on several fronts to blunt the insurgency's progress, deploying counter terrorism units and helicopter gunships to battle them for control of the country's main oil refinery, in Beiji.
A growing number of U.S. lawmakers and Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are pressing the White House to pull its support for Mr. Maliki. Some of them are pushing for change in exchange for providing their help in stabilizing Iraq, say U.S. and Arab diplomats.
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen.Dianne Feinstein(D., Calif.) told a congressional hearing Wednesday: "The Maliki government, candidly, has got to go if you want any reconciliation."
Senior administration officials have become increasingly critical of Mr. Maliki in their public statements and question whether he is committed to mending ties with Sunnis.
"There's no question that not enough has been done by the government, including the prime minister, to govern inclusively, and that that has contributed to the situation and the crisis that we have today in Iraq," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday. "The Iraqi people will have to decide the makeup of the next coalition government and who is the prime minister," he added. "Whether it's the current prime minister or another leader, we will aggressively attempt to impress upon that leader the absolute necessity of rejecting sectarian governance."
The Obama administration has for years warned Mr. Maliki's Shiite-dominant government to be more inclusive and less punitive against the minority Sunnis at the risk of further alienating them.
Mr. Maliki has largely ignored that advice over the past five years, U.S. and Arab officials say, jailing popular Sunni protest leaders, blocking even other Shiite blocs from sharing power and taking most key cabinet positions in government for himself.
This week, as pressure rose from the U.S. and other allies to work toward a representative government for Iraq, Mr. Maliki participated in a unity meeting with top Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders. The result wasn't hopeful, U.S. and Arab officials say.
"We believe that Maliki's sectarianism and exclusion of Sunnis has led to the insurgency we are seeing," said a senior Arab official. "He unfortunately managed to unite ISIS with the former Baathists and Saddam supporters."
President Barack Obama and his national security aides are in deliberations over the creation of a new strategy for stabilizing Iraq, with a clear road map expected in the coming days.
Mr. Obama has discussed the possibility of using air power and drone strikes to weaken ISIS, say U.S. officials. But he has been particularly focused on developing a political process to heal the widening rift between Iraq's Shiite and Sunni communities that officials see as feeding the support for ISIS's insurgency in western Iraq.
Mr. Obama met Wednesday with the top Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate to update them on administration plans.
Sen.Mitch McConnell(R., Ky.), the chamber's minority leader, issued a statement afterward, criticizing Mr. Obama's past policies on Iraq and saying it was important to apply the experience to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in two years.
Rep.Nancy Pelosi(D., Calif.), the House Democratic leader, said Mr. Obama didn't need any further legislative authority to pursue options in Iraq. But officials said Mr. Obama told the congressional leaders he would continue to consult with them.
Earlier Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cautioned senators at a hearing against expecting quick U.S. military strikes, because of the difficulty of developing targets. "It's not as easy as looking at an iPhone video of a convoy and then immediately striking it," said Gen. Dempsey.
To support the administration approach, Secretary of State John Kerry and his aides have consulted with Iraq's neighbors—particularly Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran—to find a formula to create a more inclusive government in Baghdad.
The State Department's point man on Iraq, Deputy Assistant Secretary Brett McGurk, has concurrently been meeting with Iraqi politicians and religious leaders in Baghdad to promote this political process, say U.S. officials.
The State Department wouldn't say if the Obama administration was specifically discussing the issue of removing Mr. Maliki during these talks. But Arab diplomats and policy advisers who have talked with the White House in recent days said it was clear the administration was "casting about for somebody better" than Mr. Maliki.
Mr. Kerry was even more pointed in his criticism of Mr. Maliki on Monday, arguing his removal could help stabilize Iraq's sectarian divide.
"If there is a clear successor, if the results of the election are respected, if people come together with the cohesiveness necessary to build a legitimate government that puts the reforms in place that people want, that might wind up being very salutatory," he told Yahoo News.
Mr. Maliki's State of Law coalition won a plurality of seats, 92 out of 328, in Iraq's parliamentary elections. The country is waiting for ratification of the results, after which the parliamentary speaker will call on the leadership of Mr. Maliki's party to form a new government.
Mr. Maliki is still viewed as in a strong position to retain his post. In fact, many Shiite leaders have rallied behind the Iraqi prime minister in the wake of the ISIS gaining control of the cities of Mosul, Tal Afar and Tikrit in recent days and launching an offensive on Baghdad.
Still, the formation of governments in Iraq has seen significant horse-trading—and the involvement of American, Iranian and Arab diplomats—since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The Shiite politician Ayad Allawi's political party won the most seats in 2010. But he failed to form a government after some Shiite and Kurdish parties backed Mr. Maliki.
Current and former U.S. officials said Iran will be crucial a player in efforts to form a new government in Baghdad and potentially remove Mr. Maliki, and will push for any new government to be friendly to its interests.
Tehran and Washington are Iraq's most important diplomatic, economic and military partners. And both the U.S. and Iran have pledged in recent days to support the Iraqi government in its fight against ISIS.
Former U.S. officials said both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations communicated regularly with Iranian diplomats in Baghdad during the political deliberation in 2006 and 2010 that previously elected Mr. Maliki. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns discussed Iraq's political reform process with Iranian officials on Monday in Vienna, according to the State Department.
"Iran can play a positive role," said Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2005 to 2007. "Sometimes, on a tactical level, there can be an opportunity for cooperation. It's happened in the past."
The sequencing of the U.S.'s deliberations with Iraq and Iran will be crucial in determining whether progress can be made in driving ISIS out of the territories it's already claimed, according to current and former U.S. officials.
Mr. Obama has signaled that he's going to hold back on launching any major military operations inside Iraq until he get assurances from the Iraqi government that it will take meaningful steps to reach out to its Sunni community.
But there are concerns within the administration that ISIS could continue to make military gains as Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi politicians jostle for power in Baghdad.
"The question is if the U.S. needs to do something [militarily] while waiting for a political settlement," said Mr. Khalilzad.
—Michael R. Crittenden, Jeffrey Sparshott, Ellen Knickmeyer and Dion Nissenbaum contributed to this article.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-signals-1403137521
By Jay Solomon & Carol E. Lee
Updated June 19, 2014 9:09 a.m. ET
The White House Is Convinced the Shiite Leader Is Unable to Reconcile With the Nation's Sunni Minority and Stabilize a Volatile Political Landscape.
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is signaling that it wants a new government in Iraq without Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, convinced the Shiite leader is unable to reconcile with the nation's Sunni minority and stabilize a volatile political landscape.
The U.S. administration is indicating it wants Iraq's political parties to form a new government without Mr. Maliki as he tries to assemble a ruling coalition following elections this past April, U.S. officials say.
Such a new government, U.S., officials say, would include the country's Sunni and Kurdish communities and could help to stem Sunni support for the al Qaeda offshoot, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, that has seized control of Iraqi cities over the past two weeks. That, the officials argue, would help to unify the country and reverse its slide into sectarian division.
On Wednesday, Iraq stepped up efforts on several fronts to blunt the insurgency's progress, deploying counter terrorism units and helicopter gunships to battle them for control of the country's main oil refinery, in Beiji.
A growing number of U.S. lawmakers and Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are pressing the White House to pull its support for Mr. Maliki. Some of them are pushing for change in exchange for providing their help in stabilizing Iraq, say U.S. and Arab diplomats.
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen.Dianne Feinstein(D., Calif.) told a congressional hearing Wednesday: "The Maliki government, candidly, has got to go if you want any reconciliation."
Senior administration officials have become increasingly critical of Mr. Maliki in their public statements and question whether he is committed to mending ties with Sunnis.
"There's no question that not enough has been done by the government, including the prime minister, to govern inclusively, and that that has contributed to the situation and the crisis that we have today in Iraq," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday. "The Iraqi people will have to decide the makeup of the next coalition government and who is the prime minister," he added. "Whether it's the current prime minister or another leader, we will aggressively attempt to impress upon that leader the absolute necessity of rejecting sectarian governance."
The Obama administration has for years warned Mr. Maliki's Shiite-dominant government to be more inclusive and less punitive against the minority Sunnis at the risk of further alienating them.
Mr. Maliki has largely ignored that advice over the past five years, U.S. and Arab officials say, jailing popular Sunni protest leaders, blocking even other Shiite blocs from sharing power and taking most key cabinet positions in government for himself.
This week, as pressure rose from the U.S. and other allies to work toward a representative government for Iraq, Mr. Maliki participated in a unity meeting with top Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders. The result wasn't hopeful, U.S. and Arab officials say.
"We believe that Maliki's sectarianism and exclusion of Sunnis has led to the insurgency we are seeing," said a senior Arab official. "He unfortunately managed to unite ISIS with the former Baathists and Saddam supporters."
President Barack Obama and his national security aides are in deliberations over the creation of a new strategy for stabilizing Iraq, with a clear road map expected in the coming days.
Mr. Obama has discussed the possibility of using air power and drone strikes to weaken ISIS, say U.S. officials. But he has been particularly focused on developing a political process to heal the widening rift between Iraq's Shiite and Sunni communities that officials see as feeding the support for ISIS's insurgency in western Iraq.
Mr. Obama met Wednesday with the top Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate to update them on administration plans.
Sen.Mitch McConnell(R., Ky.), the chamber's minority leader, issued a statement afterward, criticizing Mr. Obama's past policies on Iraq and saying it was important to apply the experience to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in two years.
Rep.Nancy Pelosi(D., Calif.), the House Democratic leader, said Mr. Obama didn't need any further legislative authority to pursue options in Iraq. But officials said Mr. Obama told the congressional leaders he would continue to consult with them.
Earlier Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cautioned senators at a hearing against expecting quick U.S. military strikes, because of the difficulty of developing targets. "It's not as easy as looking at an iPhone video of a convoy and then immediately striking it," said Gen. Dempsey.
To support the administration approach, Secretary of State John Kerry and his aides have consulted with Iraq's neighbors—particularly Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran—to find a formula to create a more inclusive government in Baghdad.
The State Department's point man on Iraq, Deputy Assistant Secretary Brett McGurk, has concurrently been meeting with Iraqi politicians and religious leaders in Baghdad to promote this political process, say U.S. officials.
The State Department wouldn't say if the Obama administration was specifically discussing the issue of removing Mr. Maliki during these talks. But Arab diplomats and policy advisers who have talked with the White House in recent days said it was clear the administration was "casting about for somebody better" than Mr. Maliki.
Mr. Kerry was even more pointed in his criticism of Mr. Maliki on Monday, arguing his removal could help stabilize Iraq's sectarian divide.
"If there is a clear successor, if the results of the election are respected, if people come together with the cohesiveness necessary to build a legitimate government that puts the reforms in place that people want, that might wind up being very salutatory," he told Yahoo News.
Mr. Maliki's State of Law coalition won a plurality of seats, 92 out of 328, in Iraq's parliamentary elections. The country is waiting for ratification of the results, after which the parliamentary speaker will call on the leadership of Mr. Maliki's party to form a new government.
Mr. Maliki is still viewed as in a strong position to retain his post. In fact, many Shiite leaders have rallied behind the Iraqi prime minister in the wake of the ISIS gaining control of the cities of Mosul, Tal Afar and Tikrit in recent days and launching an offensive on Baghdad.
Still, the formation of governments in Iraq has seen significant horse-trading—and the involvement of American, Iranian and Arab diplomats—since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The Shiite politician Ayad Allawi's political party won the most seats in 2010. But he failed to form a government after some Shiite and Kurdish parties backed Mr. Maliki.
Current and former U.S. officials said Iran will be crucial a player in efforts to form a new government in Baghdad and potentially remove Mr. Maliki, and will push for any new government to be friendly to its interests.
Tehran and Washington are Iraq's most important diplomatic, economic and military partners. And both the U.S. and Iran have pledged in recent days to support the Iraqi government in its fight against ISIS.
Former U.S. officials said both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations communicated regularly with Iranian diplomats in Baghdad during the political deliberation in 2006 and 2010 that previously elected Mr. Maliki. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns discussed Iraq's political reform process with Iranian officials on Monday in Vienna, according to the State Department.
"Iran can play a positive role," said Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2005 to 2007. "Sometimes, on a tactical level, there can be an opportunity for cooperation. It's happened in the past."
The sequencing of the U.S.'s deliberations with Iraq and Iran will be crucial in determining whether progress can be made in driving ISIS out of the territories it's already claimed, according to current and former U.S. officials.
Mr. Obama has signaled that he's going to hold back on launching any major military operations inside Iraq until he get assurances from the Iraqi government that it will take meaningful steps to reach out to its Sunni community.
But there are concerns within the administration that ISIS could continue to make military gains as Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi politicians jostle for power in Baghdad.
"The question is if the U.S. needs to do something [militarily] while waiting for a political settlement," said Mr. Khalilzad.
—Michael R. Crittenden, Jeffrey Sparshott, Ellen Knickmeyer and Dion Nissenbaum contributed to this article.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-signals-1403137521
Mav3rick
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 6,946
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
And if you somehow believe that it is because they are fearless, you would be wrong. At the end of the day, they know that they will have the US Aerial assets and US Navy's precise artillery fire covering their ***. I am pretty sure the Iraqi soldiers would have stood their ground too if they believed in their situation.
-SINAN-
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
- Messages
- 16,746
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
They were out numbering ISIS terrorists to 15vs1... still they fled.... and it is irrelevant...
You guys still don't understand the dynamics in ME.. you didn't understood that Iraq can't be ruled be democracy... now you are not understanding secteranism, tribal connections, where these soldiers loyalty lie for. They are not running away from the "enemy" because they are afraid.
Mav3rick
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 6,946
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
You know what I understand? I understand that it is important to give people what they want, if they want to be autonomous then so be it. So long as they work for a united Iraq.
Similar threads
- Article
